h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Does the US make rules for other people that they don't stick to? Can the US conform to something like the Kyoto agreement? And why are Americans so trigger happy even with each other? Is the US the flagship of the free world or it is its enemy?

Discuss

Yes.



They can, but they won't.



They hate everyone except themselves, even their friends and fellow citizens? Theirs is a society of huge inequality; if you don't struggle - really struggle - then someone else will take what you want or need, and you will go without.



This is the crunch: the question whose answer explains the others (above). America is the current global Imperial Power. Many others, perhaps Rome is the most famous or notorious, have taken their turn.

Imposing your rule upon the rest of the world is not a Good Thing (IMO), but since so many have done it before, it's difficult to condemn America for falling victim to the same temptation.

So: flagship or enemy? Both.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Uch. I don't even want to get started on this debate because it's obviously a troll. Das Mouldy Sandwich, people like you are just annoying and these sorts of posts really annoy me as an American

I'm not so sure that this can just be discounted as a troll.

Certainly statements like "The US is the enemy of the free world" are not particularly enlightening, same as "The US is the leader of the free world" or "land of the free" aren't either. The truth is more complex.

I think America does have a case to answer about expecting others to abide by rules it refuses to endorse itself. Apart from Kyoto, there's the issue of the international criminal court, where the US is busy forcing countries to sign up to an agreement not to prosecute US citizens. If the countries won't sign, their military or aid budgets get cut.

It might be objected that the US doesn't have to give aid *at all*, and so can control how it gives in whatever way suits it. Maybe. But that's not really "aid". It's just an excerise of power. And then there's the "free trade abroad, protectionism at home" policy, that people aren't happy with. And the whole "pre-emptive defence" strategy is none too popular either.

Having said all that, I don't want to turn this into an America-bashing thread. All I'm saying is that the US has a case to answer, and the perception of many outside the US is that US citizens don't really know what's being done in their name because of a partisan and over-patriotic media that's not really interested in foreign news.

Otto

The US didn't sign the Kyoto treaty, so I don't understand how they can be expected to live under it.

Regarding the world court, you can hardly blame the US for wanting to protect its own citizens. Isn't that what a government is for?

The US does not have to provide defense for foreign countries, and they do not have to give military aid to others. They are certainly within their rights to ask for concessions in exchange. Tit for tat. The countries accept that aid of their own free will, and can certainly reject it if they feel the price is too high. Have you ever considered the price the US pays to do all that?

It seems like the world is interested in undermining the self-determination of the American people. Everyone has a different idea of what the US should be doing, and gets bent out of shape when they act differently. And they don't even think about it when those ideas are self-contradictory.

Enemy of the free world... please. Definitely a trolling question. I'd be interested to learn what parallel universe or previously unknown definition of "free" includes Iraq, North Korea, Afghanistan, China, or the former Soviet Union.

Blatherskite, do you think that national governments are under any obligations other than to its citizens? And if so, what?

The problem is that no country is an island any more, and "self-determination" for citizens of one country can mean the opposite for other countries. Not signing up to a global arrangement to deal with climate change might enhance "self determination" for the US, but it won't enhance it for people in low-lying parts of the world that are going to end up under water.

I think it's what happens when one player becomes many many times more powerful than all other players - whether it's international relations, British national politics, or office politics. Those with power can re-arrange things to suit themselves, and that, it seems to me, is what the US is doing. It's also what the Romans did and the old colonial powers did as well.

The question is, what (if any) obligations ought a power in such a position be under? I think this is a key underlying question, which often gets lost under discussion of detail, and I'd be interested to hear everyone's opinion on it.

And (less importantly) do people have much higher expectations of the US because of the constant use of freedom / democracy rhetoric that's always used by its leaders?

The only obligation a national government has apart from the welfare of its people is to deal with other countries in a morally and ethically acceptable way.

The global warming thing is a bit of popular scare. We don't really understand the normal climate cycles of the earth, since we've been observing them for a tremendously short period of time. Keep in mind that in the 1970s, it was widely known that CFCs and ozone emissions were going to cause a new ice age. It's possible the world is warming, and it's possible that lands are going to be underwater. But for all we know, it's a part of the natural cycle, and we've done nothing to change it.

Therefore, we don't know enough about the impact of the Kyoto treaty to determine whether it is immoral to reject it.

"Those with power can re-arrange things to suit themselves, and that, it seems to me, is what the US is doing." - Elaborate, please.

"do people have much higher expectations of the US because of the constant use of freedom / democracy rhetoric that's always used by its leaders?" - I certainly believe people have excessive expectations. Whether that is based on the language of the leaders or their own preconceptions is difficult to debate.

Do you really think the rest of the world would be willing to make sacrifices to do something about global warming if it were just another media scare? I dare say the US media consistently promotes global warming denial with shallow arguments like "oh we don't really know it's too complicated", in order to maintain their advertising revenue from the oil and motor industries - and I guess you all want to believe the denials, because life would be easier. Well guess what. None of us want to believe global warming. The evidence is compelling in the rest of the world, it seems. But who needs evidence.

"The only obligation a national government has apart from the welfare of its people is to deal with other countries in a morally and ethically acceptable way."

Yes, I would settle for that. Do you think there is any chance?

The US media pushes the global warming scare as much as any other media. I get my information from scientific journals and online sources.

"Regarding the world court, you can hardly blame the US for wanting to protect its own citizens. Isn't that what a government is for?"

There's a difference between protecting your own citizens and feeling that they shouldn't have to obey laws outside the borders of their own country.

The US says that it is worried that someone may try and "abuse" international law to bring it's soldiers up on some minor charge in order to make them incapable of carrying out orders, but instead of setting out sensible demands over what specific war crimes they *would* be willing to subject their troops to International Law over, they simply spat out the dummy and said "We won't submit to international law, if our troops commit crimes, we'll deal with them". Sorry, but if an American citizen came to Britain and stabbed someone to death, I wouldn't be remotely happy for the US to say he wasn't subject to our law and that they would try him in the US under their law. I don't see how it should be different for the armed forces - if US troops leave US borders then they cease to be within American law and come under either the law of the nation they are serving in or International Law. You'll forgive me if I don't trust the motives of any government that has a problem with this.

As for the topic of this thread:

I think the US has the capacity to be a great force for good, and it tends to split it's international actions 50/50 in this regard.

Whilst I think they were right to go into Afghanistan and Iraq with their allies, I think they did so too much in the foolish spirit of "military adventure". The US army is good at fighting wars, but stalls when it comes to policing a defeated nation. If Bush was a Great Leader (something the US has, sadly, been lacking for a while) he would know how to play the diplomatic game and either bring in the UN or a wider group of allies to help with the stabilising of Iraq whilst making sure the intentions the US entered the country with are not underminded. However, instead he alienated key allies before the war, as well as the UN and now his action is stalling. Planning is vital for any modern military action, and it is clear Bush and Rumsfeld didn't plan much beyond fighting their way to Baghdad. And like most of the foolish men of history, they won't admit to their mistakes. Seeing the drop in Bush's popularity that has accompanied the trouble the US Army is having in "pacifying" Iraq, he may yet rue the day. I can't say that'll cause me too much heartache. He is an administator who has been thrust into a war situation he's not fully equipped to handle.

Regarding things like Kyoto, what really upsets me is that the rest of the World takes such a strop when America won't play ball. So they won't sign? Boo-hoo! Why don't we act like adults and just implement them without it? Why should the rest of us not reduce our emissions just because America won't? At the end of the day, implementing the treaty is up to them and if I've learned one thing about America it's that pushing them to do something simply makes the naysayers stronger.

"Uch. I don't even want to get started on this debate because it's obviously a troll. Das Mouldy Sandwich, people like you are just annoying and these sorts of posts really annoy me as an American"

I don't think it was a trolling post, although the title of the thread was badly-chosen to say the least (an "Is" at the start might have made the intention more clear).

Mind you, there is so much knee-jerk anti-American bilge on this site sometimes that I can't blame you for being a bit cautious

"This is the crunch: the question whose answer explains the others (above). America is the current global Imperial Power. Many others, perhaps Rome is the most famous or notorious, have taken their turn."

I think calling it the Global Imperial Power is, well, a bit of an Empire of Hype really. The US is undoubtably the strongest World Power militarily and economically but that does not mean it automatically gets whatever it wants anywhere in the world. Britain was the main economic power in the late 19th century and had a military (navy) that had a policy of outnumbering the nearest power by two ships to one. We didn't "rule the world" back then, we were just "untouchable" and if we entered a conflict then we could be decisive. America now is in much the same situation.

There are parts of the world, such as the Middle East, where America holds enormous sway. There are parts of the world, like Europe where they hold a great deal less sway than they once did and there are parts of the world, like Africa, where they have only recently taken any real strategic interest, and even then small-scale.

And there are certainly "rivals" to US power. The EU, whilst not a state, is still a trading bloc as wealthy and strong as that of the US. The "core" of the EU countries even have a currency now that can match the Dollar on international currency markets. And whilst no one can really match the US militarily, there are certain nations (Russia, China) that are sufficiently militarily powerful to make any US action against them virtually impossible without desperately important reasons.

Sorry, I'm going to shut up now.

Don't shut up... you're making some very good points.

The only comment I can make is regarding the court exemption for the US military thing. I think it your point on the Kyoto treaty applies. The rest of the world can implement the World Court thing if they want to. If the US enters into some agreements with other countries that state they'll turn those soldiers over to US authorities for trial, that's between the US and those nations. They're nobody else's business.

Here's a great reason for the US to seek these kinds of agreements: sharia law. US troops are currently deployed in places where extreme Islamic law is in place. It's not very fair to send Western soldiers to a place where they can have things cut off for petty crimes.

Seems like an honorable enough motive to me. As a former member of the US military who found himself in some potentially hostile places, I can't tell you how comforting it was to know the government was looking out for me wherever I went.

"Therefore, we don't know enough about the impact of the Kyoto treaty to determine whether it is immoral to reject it."

That's the kind of arrogant p1ssing that angers so many.

The fact is that the biggest polluter not bothering to clean up after itself is killing people is this part of the world. Skin cancer kills more people in my country than any other form of cancer. Contrary to what people were crowing about last year. The ozone hole is growing again and spring officially starts sunday.

Sure argue the impact on business impact while people die.

"They can, but they won't."

No, at least not while the Republicans are in power, because they like big buisness. They are destroying EPA standards for clean air in the US, as well.

"They hate everyone except themselves, even their friends and fellow citizens? Theirs is a society of huge inequality; if you don't struggle - really struggle - then someone else will take what you want or need, and you will go without."

I think you're exagerating a bit there.

exagerating by how much?

PC:

SC:

Well, perhaps a bit. But it got the message across, *and* it's not untrue, exaggerated though it may be.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Blatherskite, I think you may have misunderstood what the Internation Criminal Court is for, and what it means.

At the moment, everyone is subject to the laws of the country that they're in. In practice, laws aren't evenly applied, and punishments based on Sharia law (amputations etc) would not be performed on Westerners because of the effect that it would have on the perception of that country abroad. They usually settle for deportation. There was a case a few years ago of an American teenager getting corporal punishment for vandalising cars in Singapore (??) and that made headline news, presumably because it was so unusual.

The International Court is intended to prosecute war criminals and crimes against humanity. It's not a global policeman attempting to enforce national law on foriegn nationals - a kind of global extradition agreement. The IC will only act against suspected war criminals when their nation can't or won't.

"Nations agree that criminals should normally be brought to justice by national institutions. But in times of conflict, whether internal or international, such national institutions are often either unwilling or unable to act, usually for one of two reasons. Governments often lack the political will to prosecute their own citizens, or even high-level officials, as was the case in the former Yugoslavia. Or national institutions may have collapsed, as in the case of Rwanda. "

See http://www.un.org/law/icc/general/overview.htm for more info.

If a US serviceman was accused of a war crime in Iraq or Afghanistan, they would not be turned over to the local authorites for trial - that would be absurd and no-one would agree to that! The ICC would only act if the US refused to investigate,and that's not very likely.

Otto